Blab Crypto
North Carolina Moves to Regulate Crypto ATMs Amid Rising Scam Claims
North Carolina is tightening the screws on its cryptocurrency ATMs after a flood of fraud claims. House Bill 920, championed by Rep. Neal Jackson (R‑Moore), would bring cash‑to‑crypto kiosks under the state’s money‑transmission laws, imposing consumer‑protection rules that currently apply only to traditional money‑transmitters.
The proposal follows a sharp uptick in reported scams. In 2025, the state logged more than 4,300 fraud complaints linked to crypto ATMs, with seniors—defined as those over 60—making up over half of the victims. Jackson cites the loss of $257 million to scams that exploit the anonymity of crypto transactions.
Under existing law, crypto ATMs fall outside the North Carolina Money Transmitters Act. The bill would require kiosk operators to obtain a money‑transmitter license from the Commissioner of Banks and to meet a set of consumer‑protection requirements, including:
Displaying scam‑alert signs on the kiosk Providing live customer service during transactions Issuing receipts for all transactions Allowing a user to cancel a transaction while it is still in progress, before it is finalized * Granting a 30‑day window for customers to claim refunds on fraudulent transactions
The original version of the bill, heard in the House Commerce Committee, also set daily transaction limits of $1,000 for new customers and $2,500 for existing customers, and capped transaction fees at 3 %. CoinFlip, a major kiosk operator, said it supported most of that version but had concerns about the specific limits.
A later draft, produced by the House Finance Committee, raised the fee cap to 14 % and increased the daily limits to $2,500 for new customers and $5,000 for existing customers. CoinFlip did not respond to inquiries about its role in the changes.
Rep. Tim Longest (D‑Wake) attempted to revert the bill to its original limits, arguing that the 14 % cap was excessive and that a 3 % cap would still allow operators to earn a profit without taking an unfair share of the transaction. Longest also said that lower daily limits would better protect customers who might otherwise be targeted by scammers.
Jackson countered that many operators currently charge 20‑30 % fees and that seven other states cap fees at 15 %. He warned that the proposed amendments could effectively shut down the industry.
The amendment passed the committee but was then subjected to a parliamentary maneuver that forced a second vote. The vote failed along party lines.
If the bill clears the House floor, it will move to the state Senate. The outcome will determine whether North Carolina becomes one of the first states to impose comprehensive consumer‑protection rules on crypto ATMs—a move that could influence similar legislation in other jurisdictions.
Supporters say the regulations will curb fraud and protect vulnerable consumers; opponents fear the rules could stifle the growth of the crypto‑ATM industry in the state.
The debate highlights a broader national conversation about how to regulate emerging crypto technologies while balancing consumer protection with industry innovation.
As the bill moves forward, stakeholders will watch closely to see whether North Carolina adopts stricter limits or maintains a more permissive regulatory environment for crypto ATMs.
The proposal follows a sharp uptick in reported scams. In 2025, the state logged more than 4,300 fraud complaints linked to crypto ATMs, with seniors—defined as those over 60—making up over half of the victims. Jackson cites the loss of $257 million to scams that exploit the anonymity of crypto transactions.
Under existing law, crypto ATMs fall outside the North Carolina Money Transmitters Act. The bill would require kiosk operators to obtain a money‑transmitter license from the Commissioner of Banks and to meet a set of consumer‑protection requirements, including:
Displaying scam‑alert signs on the kiosk Providing live customer service during transactions Issuing receipts for all transactions Allowing a user to cancel a transaction while it is still in progress, before it is finalized * Granting a 30‑day window for customers to claim refunds on fraudulent transactions
The original version of the bill, heard in the House Commerce Committee, also set daily transaction limits of $1,000 for new customers and $2,500 for existing customers, and capped transaction fees at 3 %. CoinFlip, a major kiosk operator, said it supported most of that version but had concerns about the specific limits.
A later draft, produced by the House Finance Committee, raised the fee cap to 14 % and increased the daily limits to $2,500 for new customers and $5,000 for existing customers. CoinFlip did not respond to inquiries about its role in the changes.
Rep. Tim Longest (D‑Wake) attempted to revert the bill to its original limits, arguing that the 14 % cap was excessive and that a 3 % cap would still allow operators to earn a profit without taking an unfair share of the transaction. Longest also said that lower daily limits would better protect customers who might otherwise be targeted by scammers.
Jackson countered that many operators currently charge 20‑30 % fees and that seven other states cap fees at 15 %. He warned that the proposed amendments could effectively shut down the industry.
The amendment passed the committee but was then subjected to a parliamentary maneuver that forced a second vote. The vote failed along party lines.
If the bill clears the House floor, it will move to the state Senate. The outcome will determine whether North Carolina becomes one of the first states to impose comprehensive consumer‑protection rules on crypto ATMs—a move that could influence similar legislation in other jurisdictions.
Supporters say the regulations will curb fraud and protect vulnerable consumers; opponents fear the rules could stifle the growth of the crypto‑ATM industry in the state.
The debate highlights a broader national conversation about how to regulate emerging crypto technologies while balancing consumer protection with industry innovation.
As the bill moves forward, stakeholders will watch closely to see whether North Carolina adopts stricter limits or maintains a more permissive regulatory environment for crypto ATMs.
